Oh Great Fabricator,
Your behavior is a reminder why a lot of lawyers are so reviled.
This is your point of contention:
> . . . . To except a dimpled chad as evidence of voter intent is utterly ridiculous . . .gnores the fact that it is not ridiculous and is done quite often throughout the country." [Emphasis added.] See Message 14879961
in response to my original comment:
"To except a dimpled chad as evidence of voter intent is utterly ridiculous without any sort of standard to apply to determination of whether such dimpled chad should be counted or not." See Message 14878434; <
My actual, original response:
Message 14879961
Your statement:To except a dimpled chad as evidence of voter intent is utterly ridiculous [By the way, you should have spelled it "accept"]
Ignores the fact that it is not ridiculous and is done quite often throughout the country. Regardless of any preference in this particular election, it is not the humanly
impossible or extremely unusual process the Republicans are trying to paint it to be.
So?
What's your problem?
I said it was not ridiculous to accept a dimpled chad as voter intent.
I suspect you wish to argue that point because you didn't and don't want them to be accepted as a vote, but that is a whole other can of worms which I won't venture into further than this statment.
Now, all of your fussing and fuming (as well as Christopher's) is totally moot. Why you ask? Now read this slowly and carefully: A dimpled chad is a standard, in and of itself, of voter intent.
Standards of voter intent found to be used (Follow along now, I am speaking in general. Which means this is not to be taken in its entirety as specific in total to any specific geographic location, specific county or specific state) include, but are not limited to:
dimpled chads
hanging chads, having one or more corners detatched.
chad through which light can be seen [I find this one a little silly, but, hey, Texas does use it.]
Now, you have been fusing and fuming and pouting through this whole silly ping pong match of posts that you oddly seem to relish that I haven't proven what you said. However, I have proven what I said. Dimpled chads are used. Period. They are used as a standard from which to determine voter intent.
If you are a lawyer (as Christopher is too) how do you ever win a case if you are not addressing what was actually said?
Your second point of contention:
> Second, notice how you now assert merely that dimpled ballot had been "used" and omit your initial claim that their counting is "done often throughout the country." <
Again, I remind you that I referred you to:
Message 14872696
To: sandintoes who wrote (2081)
From: Ellen
Friday, Nov 24, 2000 1:14 AM ET
Reply # of 2962
They should have used Texas instead.
chron.com
Nov. 18, 2000, 7:44PM
Recounts a part of Texas politics
State gives leeway on voter intent
herald.com
Published Sunday, November 19, 2000, in the Miami Herald
What's a dimple? Sometimes it's a vote
...
More often than not, courts around the country have ruled that dimpled ballot holes can be
considered a vote, The New York Times reported Thursday.
cnn.com
Texas law specifically allows for counting dimpled ballots if "an indentation on
the chad ... is present and indicates a clearly ascertainable intent of the voter to vote."
I assumed that you would understand the numerous use cited in the linked articles in that post above displayed the concept of 'often.' Sorry to have made the assumption that you would grasp that.
I point you to:
Six (6) instances referred to in the first article.
Fifty (50) instances referred to in the third article. (the article actually states approximately 50)
I assumed that, given the context of the conversations on this thread at that time (i.e., their use elsewhere being cited in the then-current Florida cases), that it was known here that they had also been used in Illinois and Massachusetts. (This statement is NOT to be construed as assessment of the validity - or not - of their being cited, just a notation that they were.) Perhaps I was wrong to assume that the conversations/posts here were made by their authors as accompanied with familiarity of the then-current events. The second article quotes the NY Times: courts around the country have ruled that dimpled ballot holes can be considered a vote. I will admit to taking them at their word and did not check further to see which additional states or how many they meant exactly. Perhaps you would like to take up that task since it interests you so fervently?
So what is it you are looking for? Dimpled chad acceptance or not consistently across the counties of Florida? That is a topic I did not address - ever - but I find it unfortunate that, in the case of Florida, there were no consistent standards of dimpled chad acceptance or not across the counties. That could be attributed to the fact that their state laws allow each individual county to establish its own process. Unfortunate, but fact.
It is my understanding that California and Georgia also use some system of voting that employs the punch ballot but I do not know what, if any, standards they use to determine voter intent in the case of manual recount.
I refer you to:
gi.grolier.com
Since the VOTING MACHINE is merely a mechanical Australian ballot, its use is fully covered in the election laws of the states. The ballot label is arranged on some machines to present the party-column ballot with the straight ticket lever and a lever for a choice under each office (for example, in Rhode Island); and on other machines to present the office-group ballot, sometimes with a straight party lever also (as in Connecticut). There is provision for the write-in vote on the ballot label or on paper ballots placed within the curtain of the machine. The laws require a supply of paper ballots to be printed for use if a machine breaks down.
"Ballot title" is the term applied to the wording of a referred measure as it appears on the ballot label of the machine or on the paper ballot. Referendum and initiated measures commonly appear at the top of the ballot label for the voter's first consideration, although some machines are made for placing them at the right or bottom of the label. When a nonpartisan election is held in a primary or general election, as for judicial officers, the names of these candidates usually appear before the party candidates.
In addition to the well-established voting machine, another advanced type of ballot is the automatic voting device. This uses punch cards and electronic data processing. Each voter receives as many cards as the number of candidates and questions requires. The cards are inserted in the device. To the right of each name (or of the "Yes" and "No" spaces for questions) the voter may punch in his choice. A card spoiled in the process of voting can be turned in for a new card. All completed cards are placed in an envelope and submitted to the election judges. The device can be carried in a briefcase, and the necessary number of devices can be furnished in each precinct.
This plan has been authorized in California, Georgia, and other states. It has the value of central counting as well as the relative economy of purchase and storage. The voting machine, with its accurate and speedy counting, is still widely used, and each year more cities and counties adopt it. Probably three fourths of all votes cast are recorded and counted mechanically or electronically.
Just as a matter of possible interest:
gi.grolier.com
Found under: Requirements for Use
Much of the early dissatisfaction with the machines was caused by lack of understanding on the part of officials and voters. Now all states using machines provide training for election officials. in Florida no one may serve as a member of any board of election where machines are used without being certified by the custodian of machines as qualified to perform the duties in connection with the machine. Sample or specimen ballot labels on a reduced scale are distributed for educational purposes before the election and are on display at the polling places. Some states (New York, for example) place a machine on public exhibition in charge of a competent instructor at least three days before an election. Many states require that a miniature functioning model be in the polling place for the voter to operate before going in to cast his vote.
I hope all that high horse riding you do doesn't give you saddle sores. |
